[OPEN] tag in a thread title - opening a thread in the Christian-Only area!

[meebs]

this is cool

 

[Nightson]

Yay for Erwin!

 

[Dracil]

BTW, apparently the [open] tag is incompatible with the URL tag, which means it's impossible to properly link to [open] threads.

 

[Victory of the Cross]

the link gets there, just the name acts weird, i tested and you can always use the hyperlink to do it which i am going to use

 

[USincognito]

You can't make a proper hyperlink, but by posting the URL, it does create one. Now the question is, if we link to CF from an outside site, will the URL link properly?

 

[drstevej]

Okay, there are times when you may want to open a thread in a Christian-only forums to non-Christians. How would you do it?

Just add [OPEN] in the thread title, and a non-Christian would be able to post in the thread, even if the thread is in a Christian-only forum. Don't put this thread, and the thread will remain closed.

This is good for the Pub or Alehouse fellowship threads, but I'm sure there are other purposes for this as well.

I assume any OC can start an [OPEN] thread.

Is this not a loop-hole enabling a by-pass rule 6?

A UC only has to find a single OC willing to [OPEN] any topic in a OC area by posting an [OPEN] thread and rule 6 is gone for that topic.

Only 6.6 topics would still be restricted to non-OC areas, but threads on the Trinity can now be [OPEN]ed and the anti-Trinitarians can move their attacks from UTD to GT.

Ironically, anti-Trinitarians can use this tactic to promote their UC views, but full preterists can not use this tactic to discuss their views in Eschatology.

Or are you waiving rule 6.6 restrictions too and allowing [OPEN] discussion of these in GT???

I think this is well intentioned but it is a significant departure from Rule 6.

 

[Swart]

You can't make a proper hyperlink, but by posting the URL, it does create one. Now the question is, if we link to CF from an outside site, will the URL link properly?

Just use the thread number and not the name - it can safely be edited out.

eg: http://www.christianforums.com/t2833025

 

[USincognito]

Swart, I noticed that, thanks for pointing it out to others reading the thread since I did not. It's a testament to Erwin's coding mastry that the URLs look funny, but still function.

DrSteveJ, I'm not Erwin, Alpha staff or anyone with a dog in the hunt, but I think there are parsimonious answers to your questions. For one, someone who starts a {open} thread for the sole purpose of allowing none rule 6'ers to post to it is violating rule 1 prohibitions against trolling... which ultimately is what they are doing in facilitating a troll, even if they aren't the one's posting them.

Is a see the function of the {open} tag the provision is that "you can post here" does not mean people can post whatever they want or violate the rules in the various subforums. I mean if you really want to take the "accomodationist" view to it's illogical conclusion, and Open thread in OBOB would ostensibly allow a Baptist to rant about transformation of the host or contraception or a radical Mormon to rant about polygamy in the Life Stages forum.

I just don't see that being allowed under the {open} provisions. The subforum rules trump what amounts to a code allowance for threads trying to be as open as possible.

 

[CPman2004]

The main purpose behind any open thread is fellowship. The tags shouldn't be used to invite debate and what not.

On a side note.... The Christian Teen Forum has opened a thread where Christian and Non-Rule 6 teens can hangout together. It is one of the threads stickied in that forum.

 

[drstevej]

It would be helpful to have a clear official statement of who can post [OPEN] threads, and where and under what groundrules.


Increasingly CF is operating upon rules that never find there way into the official site rules. This causes confusion. Members look in the rules section when they have a question. When it is incomplete or inaccurate it leads to conflict -- especially when staff enforce rules that are unwritten or are buried pages deep in the Announcement Forum.

 

[nyj]

It would be helpful to have a clear official statement of who can post [OPEN] threads, and where and under what groundrules.

Only Christians can start [OPEN] threads in the Christian Only fora. We'll hash out the details in the rules, but it was meant for fellowship (that was the context for which it was requested), not debate.

 

[insaneinthebrain]

It would be helpful to have a clear official statement of who can post [OPEN] threads, and where and under what groundrules.


Increasingly CF is operating upon rules that never find there way into the official site rules. This causes confusion. Members look in the rules section when they have a question. When it is incomplete or inaccurate it leads to conflict -- especially when staff enforce rules that are unwritten or are buried pages deep in the Announcement Forum.

Actually, Erwin has modified rule 6.4:

6.4 You will NOT post in the "Christians Only" forums (but may post in all other forums) and will NOT use a "Christian" faith icon in your profile if you do NOT consider yourself a Christian (including but not limited to atheists, agnostics, or members of another faith or religion like Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam). The exception is that you may not post in the “Unorthodox Theological Doctrines” forum as that is only for those who fall within Rules 6.5 and 6.6, or reply to posts in “Questions by Non-Christians” where only those who fall within Rule 6.6 can answer. A further exception would be any thread with the tag [OPEN] in its title in these forums.

As nyj has stated, this is for fellowship purposes. Otherwise, it pretty much defeats the purpose of having a Christian Only section.

 

[Henaynei]

thank you for the clarification INTB that helps

 

[drstevej]

Thanks IITB I did not note the 6.4 change.

Perhaps it could say...

6.4 You will NOT post in the "Christians Only" forums (but may post in all other forums) and will NOT use a "Christian" faith icon in your profile if you do NOT consider yourself a Christian (including but not limited to atheists, agnostics, or members of another faith or religion like Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam). The exception is that you may not post in the “Unorthodox Theological Doctrines” forum as that is only for those who fall within Rules 6.5 and 6.6, or reply to posts in “Questions by Non-Christians” where only those who fall within Rule 6.6 can answer. A further exception would be any thread with the tag [OPEN] in its title in these forums, where only fellowship posts may be made.

That would make it clear.

 

[debi b]

Erwin and

Thank you

 

[Erwin]

Thanks IITB I did not note the 6.4 change.

Perhaps it could say...



That would make it clear.

Good idea - done.

 

[drstevej]

Good idea - done.

Thanks, Erwin.
Steve

 

[meebs]

i am now confused

so i cant talk about some points of the bible id a christian allows us? (not debating against it i mean.. just stuff that interests me?)

 

[Chrysalis Kat]

i am now confused

so i cant talk about some points of the bible id a christian allows us? (not debating against it i mean.. just stuff that interests me?)

Good question.
More and more this new policy isn't looking like it is going to provide the arena for type of real discussions we thought it was intented to foster.

 

[drstevej]

Good question.
More and more this new policy isn't looking like it is going to provide the arena for type of real discussions we thought it was intented to foster.

You were wanting Rule 6 swept aside by an [OPEN] tag?